Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010660482014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 7229/2014 Between: 1. N.NAGI REDDY, S/O.N.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 64 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, MAHAT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, R/O H.NO 20-1-444/A1,MARUTHI NAGAR, KORLAGUNTA,TIRUPATHI,CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE TIRUPATHI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE TIRUPATHI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT TIRUPATHI,CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): -2- HN, J W.P.No.7229_2014 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing endorsement No L.Dis.R.O.C.No 3605/G2/2013 dated 27-10-2013 refusing to refund the development charges for an amount of Rs 1,49,200/- that were paid by the petitioner vide challan No 3246 dated 26-08-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs 1,49,200/- that were paid by the petitioner vide challan No 3246 dated 26-08-2009 towards development charges IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 8953 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.1,49,200/- that were paid by the petitioner vide challan No.3246 dated 26-08-2009 towards development charges pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY(SC FOR TUDA) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV 3. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA -3- HN, J W.P.No.7229_2014 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is the President of an Educational Society and, with an intention to develop a building for educational purposes, had applied for permission for construction of school buildings. The petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.1,49,200/- towards development charges, an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards application charges, and an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) pit charges. It is submitted that the necessary permission was accorded on 10.07.2009. However, the petitioner did not proceed further with the proposed development and opted to surrender the permission on 15.04.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 08.11.2010 seeking refund of the developmental charges paid by the petitioner. 2. The 2nd respondent issued an endorsement dated 14.10.2013, whereby the petitioner was informed that the development charges paid by the petitioner were non-refundable and that the petitioner would be entitled to a refund of Rs.18,000/-, which was paid towards the Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) pit. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not proceeded further with the proposed development and, as such, had surrendered the approval to the 2nd respondent. It -4- HN, J W.P.No.7229_2014 is submitted that the respondents do not have a vested right to retain the amount deposited by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.17432 and 17438 of 2004. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge considered a similar issue and directed the respondents to refund the amount deposited towards development charges. 4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that Section 14 (8) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 is categorically clear insofar as the refund of amount paid towards development charges is concerned. It is submitted that the provision of law would not entitle an applicant to seek a refund, even in cases where permission is refused. It is further submitted that, in the present case, it was the petitioner’s own decision to abandon the proposed development for the reasons best known to the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 6. The petitioner would have been entitled to a refund of the amount had the respondents not processed the application and issued the approval. The petitioner, however, obtained the approval and, on his own volition, deferred the proposed development and consequently -5- HN, J W.P.No.7229_2014 withdrew from the said proposal. The petitioner cannot expect a refund of the development charges when the Act does not permit refund of such charges even in cases where the application for approval is refused. On the contrary, the respondents collected the development charges, processed the petitioner’s application, and issued the necessary permissions. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:01.07.2026 NKA -6- HN, J W.P.No.7229_2014 117 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 7229 of 2014 Date: 01.07.2026 NKA